EPA: Jobs Don't Matter

Jobs: The EPA admits to Congress that it does not take into account the impact of its regulations on employment, the economy or international competitiveness. Neither, apparently, does the White House.

This stunning revelation was made by EPA Administrator Mathy Stanislaus in response to a question by Colorado GOP Rep. Cory Gardner. It came during Stanislaus' testimony before the House Environment and Energy Committee on Thursday and exposes the Obama administration's public posture on jobs and the environment as a fraud.

Gardner was asking about an EPA regulation that would govern industries that recycle coal and ash and other fossil fuel byproducts. Recycling is a good thing. Recycled coal ash makes concrete stronger, wallboard more durable and the shingles on your roof longer-lasting.

"We have not directly taken a look at jobs in this proposal," Stanislaus said. That's odd, since his testimony seems to contradict Executive Order 13563, issued by President Obama in January, which requires that all new rules issued by federal agencies take job creation into account. As we have learned, you have to watch what the administration does, not what it says.

As reported in the Daily Caller, the EPA issued a statement on April 30, 2010, in the appendix of its regulatory impact analysis of its coal ash regulation that said the assessment "does not include either qualitative or quantitative estimation of the potential effects of the proposed rule on economic productivity, economic productivity, economic growth employment, job creation or international economic competitiveness."

The EPA recently issued an endangerment finding that determined carbon dioxide, the product of human respiration and the basis of all plant and animal life on earth, is a dangerous pollutant. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the EPA that it had the authority under the Clean Air Act to do this, even though Congress repeatedly and explicitly refused to include so-called greenhouse gases in the act's regulatory scope.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and a co-author with House committee Chairman Fred Upton of a bill to strip the EPA of authority to regulate greenhouse gases, has rightly noted that Congress deliberately did not regulate so-called greenhouse gases with the Clean Air Act, a bill designed to deal with air quality, not the climate.

Inhofe notes that while the Supreme Court said the EPA had the discretion to "decide whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare," it did not authorize draconian regulations based on flawed science, regulations that would impose an economy-crushing hidden tax on businesses, energy producers and the American consumer.

Jobs: The EPA admits to Congress that it does not take into account the impact of its regulations on employment, the economy or international competitiveness. Neither, apparently, does the White House.

This stunning revelation was made by EPA Administrator Mathy Stanislaus in response to a question by Colorado GOP Rep. Cory Gardner. It came during Stanislaus' testimony before the House Environment and Energy Committee on Thursday and exposes the Obama administration's public posture on jobs and the environment as a fraud.

Gardner was asking about an EPA regulation that would govern industries that recycle coal and ash and other fossil fuel byproducts. Recycling is a good thing. Recycled coal ash makes concrete stronger, wallboard more durable and the shingles on your roof longer-lasting.

"We have not directly taken a look at jobs in this proposal," Stanislaus said. That's odd, since his testimony seems to contradict Executive Order 13563, issued by President Obama in January, which requires that all new rules issued by federal agencies take job creation into account. As we have learned, you have to watch what the administration does, not what it says.

As reported in the Daily Caller, the EPA issued a statement on April 30, 2010, in the appendix of its regulatory impact analysis of its coal ash regulation that said the assessment "does not include either qualitative or quantitative estimation of the potential effects of the proposed rule on economic productivity, economic productivity, economic growth employment, job creation or international economic competitiveness."

The EPA recently issued an endangerment finding that determined carbon dioxide, the product of human respiration and the basis of all plant and animal life on earth, is a dangerous pollutant. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the EPA that it had the authority under the Clean Air Act to do this, even though Congress repeatedly and explicitly refused to include so-called greenhouse gases in the act's regulatory scope.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and a co-author with House committee Chairman Fred Upton of a bill to strip the EPA of authority to regulate greenhouse gases, has rightly noted that Congress deliberately did not regulate so-called greenhouse gases with the Clean Air Act, a bill designed to deal with air quality, not the climate.

Inhofe notes that while the Supreme Court said the EPA had the discretion to "decide whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare," it did not authorize draconian regulations based on flawed science, regulations that would impose an economy-crushing hidden tax on businesses, energy producers and the American consumer.

Recently, the EPA announced new environmental guidelines that will effectively curtail surface and "mountaintop" mining in a six-state region centered on Appalachia. According to the National Mining Association, the region covered by these restrictions produced more than 150 million tons of coal in 2008, more than 10% of the U.S. total, and employed nearly 20,000 people.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's economic forecasting model, a proposed 70% cut in carbon dioxide emissions will cause gasoline prices to rise 77% over baseline projections, kill more than 3 million jobs and reduce average household income by more than $4,000 every year.

"I'd like to see a list of all the rules that you have proposed that haven't taken into account jobs," Gardner told Stanislaus.

So would we, but our guess is that none of them do.

The administration did not worry about energy jobs when it stopped drilling in the Gulf and imposed a seven-year ban on drilling off America's main coasts and Alaska. Team Obama is too committed to saving the earth to save your job to even consider it in its regulations.

See Also

There is no question about whether President Obama — along with Secretary of State John Kerry and the editorial pages of many newspapers — has a particular dislike of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But there is another question: Why? And the answer is due to an important ...

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lobbied powerfully against a nuclear agreement with Iran in a well-crafted speech to Congress Tuesday. The problem is that he has now created a zero-sum game with the Obama administration, in which either the president or the prime minister seems likely to ...

Leadership: Among the world's gamier states, there seems to be a new status quo: Kill your opponent. The murder of Boris Nemtsov is the latest such barbarism. It all suggests a void from the U.S. as leader of the free world.The brazen broad-daylight assassination of Nemtsov, a former Russian vice ...

Economy: In his weekly address, President Obama railed against Wall Street for giving "bad advice" that costs American families billions a year. OK, but what about his bad policies that have cost them far more?The president used his precious radio time to lash out at financial advisers for mistakes ...

Cities: The problem with socialism, Margaret Thatcher once noted, is you eventually run out of other people's money. In progressive Chicago, that's hit home as Moody's has cut its credit rating to two grades above "junk."Chicago's finances are staggering under the weight of an unfunded pension ...

Select market data is provided by Interactive Data Corp. Real Time Services. Price and Volume data is delayed 20 minutes unless otherwise noted, is believed accurate but is not warranted or guaranteed by Interactive Data Corp. Real Time Services and is subject to Interactive Data Corp. Real Time Services terms. All times are Eastern United States. *Reflects real-time index prices.